Third-Party Content

Parker v. Google

Date: 

08/18/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Gordon Parker

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Google, Inc.; John Does (1-50,000)

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

2:04CV03918

Legal Counsel: 

Bart Volkmer, David Kramer, John Riley, Leo Cunningham, William Murray

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Gordon Parker sued Google in federal court in Pennsylvania in August 2004. According to court documents, Parker claimed that he published a website, "29 Reasons Not to be a Nice Guy." He alleged that an unknown Internet user copied Reason #6 and posted it on USENET, which Google then made accessible via its Google Groups service. Parker also alleged that Google defamed him by enabling users to access links to websites disparaging him using its search engine function and invaded his privacy by creating an unauthorized biography of him whenever someone "googled" his name.

The district court dismissed all of Parker's claims. It held that Parker's claim of direct copyright infringement failed because he did not allege volitional conduct on the part of Google in making the USENET posts available. The claim of contributory copyright infringement failed, according to the court, because Parker failed to show that Google had knowledge of the offending posts, and the vicarious infringement claim failed because Google did not have a direct financial interest in its user's posting of allegedly copyrighted material.

The court held that Parker's defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims were defeated by CDA 230, which protects providers of interactive computer services from tort liability for publishing the statements or content of third parties, because he did not allege that Google was the "information content provider" of the offending material. His other claims were also dismissed as "futile" because the plaintiff failed to set out the basic elements of each of these claims.

The Third Circuit affirmed the decision.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Mayhew v. Dunn

Date: 

11/16/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

David Dunn; Lise LePage and Christopher Grotke d/b/a/ Musearts Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court, Windham County, Vermont

Case Number: 

580-11-07 Wmcv

Legal Counsel: 

Jim Maxwell (for LePage and Grotke), Jesse Corum IV (for Dunn)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-founders and owners of iBrattleboro.com, a citizen journalism site based in Brattleboro, Vermont, were sued on November 16 for libel based on a comment submitted by one of the site's users. The lawsuit, brought by Effie Mayhew, alleges that David Dunn, the former executive director of Rescue Inc., an emergency medical services organization where Mayhew works as a volunteer, libeled her in a comment on the site.

According to the complaint, on September 30, 2007, Dunn authored an article in which he

states without specificity general sexual liaisons are being conducted on the premises. Then he names Ms. Mayhew, further stating that she is conducting an "affair" with a "married member of the Rescue, Inc. board of trustees" indicating that this behavior was happening during "on call" hours at the agency.

The complaint doesn't appear to make any allegations that Grotke or LePage authored the allegedly defamatory statements, only that they failed to edit or remove the comment. As a result, Grotke and LePage are almost certainly shielded from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230").

Under CDA 230, "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This immunity preempts state law causes of action, like defamation claims, that are based on "publisher" liability. Moreover, immunity exists even if a defendant edits comments (so long as the edits do not materially change the meaning of the statement) or otherwise exercises discretion in selecting which comments to post or remove.

Update:

12/3/07 - Defendants Grotke and LePage filed motion for judgment on the pleadings

3/18/08 - Court dismissed action under CDA 230 as to defendants LePage, Gotke, and MuseArts Inc.

9/2/08 - We were informed that the Court dismissed the remaining claim against David Dunn 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

To-Do: Get order dismissing David Dunn

User submitted (by email)

Libel Lawsuit Filed Against iBrattleboro Founders Grotke & LePage

Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-founders and owners of iBrattleboro.com, a widely acclaimed citizen journalism site based in Brattleboro, Vermont, were sued on November 16 for libel based on a comment submitted by one of the site's users.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

CNET on Libel and User-Generated Content

Before the Thanksgiving holiday, Steve Tobak at CNET published a useful post -- "Bloggers beware: You're liable to commit libel." In it, he gives a straightforward and largely accurate account of the elements of a defamation claim and some good general advice:

Subject Area: 

Kavakich v. Chavla (Subpoena)

Date: 

04/20/2004

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Terri Chavla; Munir Chavla; John Does (1-3)

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Government

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

Western District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

2:04CV00594

Legal Counsel: 

Ronald Barber, Catherine Mancing, Witold Walczak

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Terri and Munir Chavla, operators of a community forum called LocalScoop.net, along with three anonymous users of the site sued Mark Kavakich, the local chief of police, after Kavakich sent them a subpoena seeking the identities of users of the site. According to the lawsuit, Kavakich also posted messages on the site threatening to uncover the identities of anonymous users who had criticized him and sent an email to the site's operators threatening civil and criminal action.

On April 20, 2004, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining defendant Kavakich from a) making any threats, either generally or specifically, to prosecute or identify people who post messages on the Internet, specifically, at www.localscoop.net; b) enforcing subpoenas, dated 4/12 and 4/14/04, against www.localscoop.net webmaster Russell Stevens; and c) from threatening to use or making use of any compulsory process to prosecute, identify or confront people who post messages on the Internet, specifically at www.localscoop.net, except by leave of court based upon a showing of probable cause.

The case then proceeded through discovery and court ordered mediation. On January 24, 2006, the court approved the parties' consent decree settling the case. The settlement involved the payment of $42,000 to the plaintiffs and the continuation of the limitations outlined in the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs received legal asssistance from Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Kavakich v. Chavla

Date: 

04/20/2004

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Mark Kavakich, Chief of Police of North Franklin Township

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Terri Chavla; Munir Chavla; John Does (1-3)

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Government

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

Western District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

2:04CV00594

Legal Counsel: 

Ronald Barber, Catherine Mancing, Witold Walczak

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Terri and Munir Chavla, operators of a community forum called LocalScoop.net, along with three anonymous users of the site sued Mark Kavakich, the local chief of police. According to the lawsuit, Kavakich posted messages on the site threatening to uncover the identities of anonymous users who had criticized him and sent an email to the site's operators threatening civil and criminal action. Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint that Kavakich sent them a subpoena seeking the identities of users of the site.

On April 20, 2004, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining defendant Kavakich from a) making any threats, either generally or specifically, to prosecute or identify people who post messages on the Internet, specifically, at www.localscoop.net; b) enforcing subpoenas, dated 4/12 and 4/14/04, against www.localscoop.net webmaster Russell Stevens; and c) from threatening to use or making use of any compulsory process to prosecute, identify or confront people who post messages on the Internet, specifically at www.localscoop.net, except by leave of court based upon a showing of probable cause.

The case then proceeded through discovery and court ordered mediation. On January 24, 2006, the court approved the parties' consent decree settling the case. The settlement involved the payment of $42,000 to the plaintiffs and the continuation of the limitations outlined in the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs received legal asssistance from Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Sorenson's Ranch School v. MySpace

Date: 

07/31/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Sorenson's Ranch School; Shane Sorenson; Jill Sorenson

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

MySpace, Inc.; John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual
School

Type of Party: 

Individual
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Utah

Case Number: 

2:06CV00632

Legal Counsel: 

None

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Withdrawn

Description: 

Sorenson's Ranch School, a rehabilitation center and school for troubled youths in Koosharem, Utah, along with two of its officers filed a defamation lawsuit against MySpace and 10 unknown John Doe defendants claiming that a MySpace page had been set up in which users criticized the school's operations (the page no longer exists).

In the suit, the school alleged that MySpace and some anonymous users published statements falsely indicating that the Sorensons engaged in child abuse, employed underqualified staff, and engaged in false advertising. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants used "vulgar and inappropriate language" and otherwise made defamatory statements regarding the school.

The complaint asked for $125,000 in damages and an injunction against further publication of the defamatory comments.

There is no indication in the case docket that plaintiffs served MySpace with the complaint, and no defendant filed an answer. About four months after filing the complaint, with no further filings or motions occuring in the case, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

MLRC

Children of America, Inc. v. Magedson

Date: 

03/05/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Edward Magedson; Xcentric Ventures, LLC

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County

Case Number: 

CV 2007-003720

Legal Counsel: 

David S. Gingras

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Settled (total)

Description: 

In March 2007, Children of America, Inc., a childcare provider, sued Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the owners and operators of the Ripoff Report website, for defamation in Arizona state court.

Ripoff Report is a consumer reporting website that invites consumers to file and document complaints about companies or individuals with whom they've had negative business experiences. Users of Ripoff Report posted a number of critical comments about Children of America.

Children of America sued, arguing that, in addition to publishing user comments, Ripoff Report itself augmented and/or added headlines for the allegedly defamatory postings.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claim based on CDA 230, which protects information service providers from liability for the defamatory comments of third parties. On October 24, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the motion with respect to those statements allegedly created by Ripoff Report users, but allowed the action to continue with respect to those statements allegedly authored by the defendants.

Update:

12/1/08 - According to the Case Docket, the parties have settled the case.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

I have emailed D's attorney seeking info about the date complaint initially filed --Jill

I found docket, see related links. SB

To-do: monitor status - this thing might settle

Status checked on 6/03/08 (AAB)

Galveston Independent School District v. Tetley

Date: 

10/29/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Sandra Tetley

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Tony Buzbee

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On October 29, 2007, a lawyer for the Galveston Independent School District sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sandra Tetley, who operates a "watchdog" blog about the school district called GISD Watch.

We have not been able to obtain a copy of the school district's letter, but, according to the Galveston County Daily News, the letter demanded that Tetley remove what it called libelous statements and other "legally offensive" statements posted by her and anonymous users of her site. The postings complained about in the letter apparently accused district officials of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for personal gain, and violating open meetings laws, among other things. The letter indicated that the school district would sue Tetley if she refused to meet its demands.

Tetley retained a local lawyer who sent a response letter to the district's lawyer on November 8, arguing that Tetley could not be held liable for the statements of others and characterizing the statements at issue as opinions. Tetley has not removed the offending posts and has announced her intention to defend the suit vigorously.

On November 9, school superintendent Lynne Cleveland issued a statement recommending that the district not pursue legal action against Tetley. Cleveland reasoned that she did not want to pull attention away from educating the district's children any longer. It is not clear at present whether the school district has taken any further steps.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Should probably monitor this blog for updates.

Status checked on 6/4/2008, it doesn't appear that the GISD has moved ahead at all.  (AAB) 

Lackner v. Sanchez

Date: 

08/30/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

R.L. Lackner, Inc.

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Robert Sanchez

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

County Court, Cameron County, Texas; United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Case Number: 

2005-CCL-1032-C; 1:05CV00264

Legal Counsel: 

A. Peter Thaddeus, Montgomery English

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Robert Sanchez lost an election for City Commissioner in Brownsville, Texas, but kept the forum on his campaign website active after the election. On that forum, users posted allegedly libelous material about Carolyn Lackner Baird, a jewelry store owner connected to Sanchez's political rival, as well as her daughter and her business.

The corporation operating the jewelry store sued Sanchez for libel based on these posts. Sanchez removed the case to federal court on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) protected him from liability.

On plaintiff's motion to remand, the federal court held that, as an affirmative defense, CDA 230 did not provide proper grounds for removal of the action to federal court when the parties were both from Texas and the plaintiff had asserted only state law claims for relief.

The federal court therefore remanded the case back to the County Court of Cameron County, Texas.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

To Do: continue to follow case

Status checked on 6/5/2008, no new information (AAB)

Status checked on 2/19/2009, no new information (VAF) 

 

VeriResume v. Marshall (Email)

Date: 

10/30/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tabatha Miller

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog
User Comment
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Tabatha Marshall runs a blog and website at TabathaMarshall.com, on which she writes about suspicious online job solicitations and so-called "phishing" practices. Part of her site consists of the "PhishBucket," a "directory of companies / individuals suspected of targeting job seekers with deceptive offers." Included in the PhishBucket is an entry for "VeriResume (Internet Solutions)," which bears the statement "Pending Investigation Phisher" at the top-right of the page. The entry also contains physical and web addresses for the company, links to posts about it (internal and external), and names of affiliated companies. The PhishBucket also includes entries for other companies operated by Internet Solutions Corporation, including Ask America, Too Spoiled, and USA Voice.

Marshall's site also contains articles relating to her research and views about certain companies and their online job solicitations. Among these is a post entitled "Something's VeriRotten with VeriResume." In this post, Marshall excerpts a sample email from VeriResume soliciting job applications, criticizes the company's position on resume fraud, and links to other sites (like the Better Business Bureau) with information about VeriResume and Internet Solutions. She invites readers to "[c]heck out the research and YOU decide if you want to give them your info."

Several users submitted comments to the post that were critical of VeriResume. One user, who claimed to be a company employee, alleged that the company engages in a "bait-and-switch" routine after applicants submit their information, according to documents attached to the complaint. In an update to her original post, Marshall summarized these user's comments and expounded on the situation.

Starting on October 30, 2007, a representative of VeriResume (or Internet Solutions -- the record is not clear on this point) contacted Marshall via email, claiming that information about VeriResume and other companies posted on Marshall's website was incorrect and asking her to remove it. According to Marshall, the company representative also contacted her landlord, claiming that Marshall was operating a business in her house, a claim that Marshall disputes.

On October 31, 2007, Counsel representing VeriResume and ten other Internet Solutions-affiliated companies sent a cease-and-desist letter to Marshall via email. Marshall did not open the attachment because she did not recognize the email address of the sender. She received a hard copy of the letter on November 5, 2007, after a lawsuit had already been filed. The letter demanded that Marshall cease and desist from defaming the companies by characterizing them as "phishing" enterprises or "scams." It claimed that these and other statements were actionable under "numerous legal causes of action," including "libel, defamation, and tortious interterference with business contracts and business relationships." The letter further requested that Marshall remove all references on her site to any of the ten companies, and advised her that suit would be filed if she did not comply by 5pm the next day.

On October 31, counsel also sent a draft copy of the complaint, which was filed in federal court in Florida the next day. (For more information on the related lawsuit, please see the CMLP database entry, Internet Solutions v. Marshall).

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

User submitted; adapted from submission through threat form

Internet Solutions v. Marshall

Date: 

11/01/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tabatha Marshall

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Number: 

6:07-CV-1740-ORL-22KRS (district court); 08-12328-FF (appeals court)

Legal Counsel: 

Matthew T. Farr (district court); Marc J. Randazza - Randazza Legal Group (appeal)

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

On November 1, 2007, Internet Solutions, a company that runs a number of employment recruiting and Internet advertising businesses, including VeriResume, sued blogger Tabatha Marshall in federal court in Florida.

Marshall runs a blog and website at www.tabathamarshall.com, on which she writes about suspicious online job solicitations and so-called "phishing" practices. Part of her site consists of the "PhishBucket," a "directory of companies/individuals suspected of targeting job seekers with deceptive offers." Included in the PhishBucket is an entry for "VeriResume (Internet Solutions)," which bears the statement "Pending Investigation Phisher" at the top-right of the page. The entry also contains physical and web addresses for the company, links to posts about it (internal and external), and names of affiliated companies. The PhishBucket also includes entries for other companies operated by Internet Solutions, including Ask America, Scout 2007, Too Spoiled, and USA Voice.

Marshall's site also contains articles relating to her research and views about certain companies and their online job solicitations. Among these is a post entitled "Something's VeriRotten with VeriResume." In this post, Marshall excerpts a sample email from VeriResume soliciting job applications, criticizes the company's position on resume fraud, and links to other sites (like the Better Business Bureau) with information about VeriResume and Internet Solutions. She invites readers to "[c]heck out the research and YOU decide if you want to give them your info."

Several users submitted comments to the post that were critical of VeriResume. One user, who claimed to be a company employee, alleged that the company engages in a "bait-and-switch" routine after applicants submit their information, according to documents attached to the complaint. In an update to her original post, Marshall summarized these user's comments and expounded on the situation.

Starting on October 30, 2007, a representative of VeriResume (or Internet Solutions -- the record is not clear on this point) contacted Marshall via email, claiming that information about VeriResume and other companies posted on Marshall's website was incorrect and asking her to remove it. According to Marshall, the company representative also contacted her landlord, claiming that Marshall was operating a business in her house, a claim that Marshall disputes. On October 31, 2007, one day before filing suit, counsel representing VeriResume and ten other Internet Solutions-affiliated companies sent a cease-and-desist letter to Marshall via email. (For more information on the emails and letter, please see the CMLP database entry, VeriResume v. Marshall (Email)).

Internet Solutions's complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and injurious falsehood (trade libel). It alleges that Marshall has "author[ed], post[ed], and publish[ed]" statements claiming that Internet Solutions engages in "phishing," "scams," and other criminal and fraudulent conduct. It requests compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring Marshall to remove the allegedly defamatory posts and prohibiting her from making future defamatory statements about the company.

Marshall was served with the complaint on November 3, and she has 20 days to respond. Marshall maintains that she merely posts her opinions, publicly available information, and third-party comments and asks her readers to draw their own conclusions. She is seeking legal assistance in this matter.

Update:

4/8/2008 - The court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Marshall.

4/24/08 - Internet Solutions indicated to Marshall that it intends to file an appeal and commence another lawsuit in Washington state.

04/29/08 - Internet Solutions filed a notice that it has appealed the dismissal to the 11th Circuit.

06/06/2008 - Internet Solutions filed its appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

07/16/2008 - Marshall filed her appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

02/10/2009 - The 11th Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Does posting allegedly defamatory stories and comments about a company with its principal place of business in Florida on a non-commercial website owned and operated by a nonresident with no other connections to Florida constitute a commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of Fla. Stat. section 48.193(1)(b)?"

03/03/2010 - Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question.

06/17/2010 - Florida Supreme Court issued its decision on the certified question:

We answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative. We conclude that posting defamatory material on a website alone does not constitute the commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Rather, the material posted on the website about a Florida resident must not only be accessible in Florida, but also be accessed in Florida in order to constitute the commission of the tortious act of defamation within Florida under section 48.193(1)(b). 

9/30/2010 - District Court dismissed case based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

User submitted through threat form

Status checked on 6/5/2008, no case in Washington yet (AAB)

Updated 1/22/09 - VAF

Citizen Media Law Podcast #2: Legal Threats Database; Orthomom Defamation Action; Iranian Blogger Sued in Canada

This week, David Ardia previews our legal threats database, Colin Rhinesmith talks about a recent decision on First Amendment protections for anonymous bloggers, and Sam Bayard spotlights a defamation suit involving an Iranian blogger in Canada.

Download the MP3 (time: 9:30)

Music used in this podcast was sampled and remixed from a track titled "Jazz House" by the Wicked Allstars, available on Magnatune.

To subscribe to the Citizen Media Law Podcast, visit our Subscriptions page or go directly to the podcast feed.

 

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Video Professor v. Justin Leonard

Date: 

07/11/2007

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Justin Leonard; Leonard Fitness, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

07-cv-1726-WYD-CBS

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give consumers the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of various products and services. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

On July 11, 2007, Video Professor's president sent a letter to Justin Leonard, requesting that Leonard provide the company with contact information for each person who had posted comments to his websites relating to Video Professor. Leonard did not respond to this request.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

We are not aware of the filing of any motion to quash yet.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

to-do: monitor status

Warman v. Fournier

Date: 

09/10/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Constance Wilkins-Fournier; Mark Fournier

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Richard Warman is a Canadian human rights lawyer based in Ottawa. Formerly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman is best known for initiating human rights complaints against members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements for engaging in hate speech on the Internet.

In September and October 2007, Warman sent two letters to Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, proprietors of the right-wing Canadian forum/website, Freedominion.ca. The letters accused Fournier and Wilkins-Fournier of libel, stated Warman's "intention to commence an action for libel against [them]," and requested a complete retraction. The letters claimed that posts written by the Fourniers and forum participants were libelous in that they accused Warman of engaging in censorship, stifling free speech, and being a "professional complainer," among other things.

A number of websites and bloggers have proclaimed their support for the Fourniers and their condemnation of what they see as Warman's attempts at censorship. Among them are neo-Nazis that Warman has targeted in the past. There is no evidence that the Fourneirs condone the positions espoused by these neo-Nazi supporters, however. In fact, a significant portion of Freedominion.ca's user base appears to be supporters of Israel and Jewish causes.

On or around November 23, 2007, Warman filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

to-do: need to create entry for lawsuit

New York Court Dismisses Orthomom Defamation Action

On Tuesday, October 23, Justice Marcy Friedman of the New York Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit seeking discovery from Google (dba Blogger) regarding the identities of the anonymous operator of the blog "Orthomom" and an anonymous commenter to the blog. The court's opinion is potentially important because it addresses the difficult question of what standard a court should apply when deciding whether to unmask an anonymous defendant in a defamation action.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Video Professor v. Does

Date: 

08/16/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John and Jane Does 1-100; John Doe Corporations 1-10; Other John Doe Entities 1-10

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Case Number: 

07-cv-1726

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy (for third party, Justin Leonard)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give users of infomerical products the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of these products and associated sales tactics. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

Update:

12/26/2007 - Video Professor filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, ending the case.

07/10/2009 - Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports that the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com have been taken down.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

 

Loan Center of California v. Krowne (Email)

Date: 

04/18/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Aaron Krowne

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Krowne operates The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter (ml-implode.com, mortgageimplode.com), a Web site that posts information about mortgage lending companies that have gone out of business or are expected to go out of business. On April 18, 2007, Krowne posted an e-mail from an anonymous source claiming to be a recently-laid-off employee of mortgage lender Loan Center of California (“LCC”). The e-mail stated that LCC was shutting down and that only a “skeleton crew” of employees remained to “clean up the mess.” It also accused LCC of fraud and various other improper business activities.

According to Krowne's case filings, LCC attorney Michael Huber contacted him within hours of the e-mail's posting. Krowne says he was threatened with a lawsuit, and thus chose to remove the e-mail and all mention of LCC from his site. LCC filed suit nonetheless, bringing claims of defamation, unfair business practices, and interference with contract. (Please see the CMLP's Database entry for the related Loan Center v. Krowne lawsuit.)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Unfortunately, there isn't any information available on the threat emails other than a brief mention in Krowne's case filings.

Subway v. Quiznos (Letters)

Date: 

11/01/2006

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

QIP Holders LLC (Quiznos); iFilm Corp.

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Organization
Large Organization

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

In late 2006, restaurant franchisor Quiznos and video-sharing site iFilm co-sponsored a nationwide contest, “Quiznos v. Subway TV Ad Challenge,” inviting members of the public to submit videos comparing a Quiznos sandwich to a Subway sandwich using the theme "meat, no meat." Contestants submitted their videos to www.meatnomeat.com, and iFilm published entries on its website, where they remained following the end of the contest and selection of the winner.

According to paragraph 23 of Subway's second amended complaint, later filed in federal court in Connecticut, on November 1, 2006 Subway sent Quiznos and/or iFilm cease-and-desist letters, demanding that they stop making "false and misleading derogatory statements" about Subway's product via the user-submitted videos, and that they "remove from [their] websites the commercials and advertisements." Two of the commercial were apparently relocated, but, according to Subway's second amended complaint, Quiznos and iFilm refused to remove the commercials, which remained viewable online.

Subway filed a lawsuit against Quiznos and iFilm in federal court within days of the letters being sent. (Please see the CMLP's Database entry for the related Subway v. Quiznos lawsuit.)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Jill Button edited -- not sure what 'subject area' if any is appropriate given that the CDA 230 defense has not been raised at the letter stage.

DirectBuy v. Leonard

Date: 

09/21/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Justin Leonard

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Description: 

Justin Leonard of Scottsdale, Arizona publishes three websites: infomercialblog.com, infomercialratings.com, and infomercialscams.com. These websites give consumers the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of various products and services.

On September 21, 2007, DirectBuy, a company that apparently helps customers to buy furniture directly from manufacturers, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Leonard through its lawyers, Dozier Internet Law, P.C. The letter claims that Leonard and his users had defamed the company by referring to its direct-buy plan as a "scam" and a "nightmare." It threatens a lawsuit unless Leonard removes "all defamatory and disparaging statements" about DirectBuy from his websites and compensates the company for its attorneys fees and costs. Most interestingly, the letter ends with an assertion of copyright on behalf of the law firm:

Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and you are not authorized to republish this is any manner. Use of this letter in a posting, in full or in part, will subject you to further legal causes of action.

Public Citizen Litigation Group got involved on behalf of Leonard. Lawyers for the group not only posted the Dozier firm's letter, but sent a powerful (yet cheeky) response entitled "How not to write a cease and desist letter -- an open letter in response to your September 21 threat." The response not only disputes DirectBuy's defamation claim and its expansive reading of the important recent CDA 230 case, Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007), but also takes the Dozier firm to task for its copyright warning, calling it "the worst thing about your letter". The Public Citizen lawyer continued:

Such a posting [of the letter] would be fair use. Moreover, inquiry by my colleague Greg Beck produced the interesting information that the copyright in the letter has not been registered. Sadly, according to what you told him, you have been successful in this intimidation because none of your cease and desist letters has ever been posted.

There is always a first time. We are posting the letter on the Public Citizen web site (the letter can be found at http://www.citizen.org/documents/directbuycd.pdf) so the public can assess our differences by comparing your contentions with our responses. By this letter, we are inviting you to test the validity of your theory that a writer of a cease and desist letter can avoid public scrutiny by threatening to file a copyright law suit if his letter is disclosed publicly on the Internet.

There appears to have been no developments after Public Citizen's response letter.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/3/2008 (AAB)

Status checked 6/17/09; no new info (CMF)

Update 7/10/09-AVM Website is now down. Leonard sold the site and its new owners have been sued by video professor. I put in a link to the story but will create a new entry for the new lawsuit. 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Third-Party Content